If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And you could even say (and you would if you had even the smallest of frontal lobes in your brain), that Islam is not in any way, shape, or form, a cause of pedophilia in western society. Society even! Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a sexual or religious orientation.

I didn't mean that being a Muslim physically causes you to like children, which is what I think you understood me to say. My point was that given two societies, let's say society A and society B, both societies have the same amount of pedophiles. Society A discourages pedophilia. Society B idealizes a pedophile, and child marriage is a common and excepted thing. The instances of pedophilia would be a metric ton more frequent in the society that is OK with pedophilia. That was my point. In the Islamic world, child marriage (forced usually) is a frequent occurance. Such as this instance. On top of that, the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile. So in an Islamic society, a pedophile would be able to engage in sexual acts with a child without as much traction.

I don't know why I even responded to your post, since you resorted to petty insults.

The only way I see it happening is if we had a massive event that wiped out the vast majority of humanity and we needed to repopulate as fast as we could, which ironically we would have to ban homosexual activity then to keep the gene pool strong.

Uhh.....you realize that homosexuals can't reproduce, yes? So whether or not homosexuals chose to have sex in a "repopulate the Earth" scenario would have no effect on the gene pool...

Originally Posted by Lord Zoroark

Listen, you gotta remember these things; always avoid claims of Fennekin being (or becoming) part Fighting-type, don't tick off mods, and NEVER (and I mean NEVER!) suggest that Arceus is the God of Pokemon when Endolise is online. If you somehow make this mistake, run for the hills before he attempts to murder you via tongue lashing.

Uhh.....you realize that homosexuals can't reproduce, yes? So whether or not homosexuals chose to have sex in a "repopulate the Earth" scenario would have no effect on the gene pool...

That was my point, if you are going to have a diverse gene pool you are going to need everyone to contribute to it, thus you would need to pretty much force Homosexuals to have sex with the opposite sex or contribute a significant amount of sperm ( That is if we have refrigeration still in this absurd scenario ), to produce more babies and to have more diversity.

Answering that question would be completely pointless. It would be like asking if in history has a gay man raped another man before.

Originally Posted by Iceberg

Yeah eventually they're going to act on their urges. As any serial killer will tell you, you can only fantasize for so long.

That's a rather grim way to look at things. Imagine that there's a guy who has a crush on you, but you don't like him in return. According to your logic, the guy will eventually rape you and it's only a matter of time.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

Answering that question would be completely pointless. It would be like asking if in history has a gay man raped another man before.

Only if in you're comparing a pedophile who doesn't have sex to a gay man who does. What kind of comparison involving sexuality only puts sex on one half of the equation?!

That's just the problem: the only way a pedophile has their own form of sex is rape, but the way a homosexual has their own form of sex IS NOT always rape.

But just go ahead and only talk about dormant pedophiles and ignore the others, so that you can keep saying pedophilia and homosexuality are totally comparable. It's not doing a service for gay people OR pedophiles, because if the psychology establishment really does remove pedophilia as a disorder, all hell will break loose and social conservatives will bump standards of sex and gender back to the 50's.

Last edited by CSolarstorm; 12th August 2012 at 5:26 AM.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

But just go ahead and only talk about dormant pedophiles and ignore the others, so that you can keep saying pedophilia and homosexuality are totally comparable. It's not doing a service for gay people OR pedophiles, because if the psychology establishment really does remove pedophilia as a disorder, all hell will break loose and social conservatives will bump standards of sex and gender back to the 50's.

To be fair, the same thing happened when Gays were delisted as a disorder, and I don't think we are back in the 50s atleast. However what backwards idiots do or do not do shouldn't keep it from being properly scientifically defined. Sadly though it seems like politics has and will always be part of the process.

I actually have to disagree, if we break down sex to it's most primal level, reproduction, it is entirely equivalent to homosexuality and other orientations. Homosexuality, Beastiality, Pedophilia, all do not lead to reproduction, the person is sexually attractive to some one or some thing that is unable to physically reproduce.

I mean we can all go round and round about what is adult, and what is consent, but at the end of the day it all comes down to our basic primal urges, and for those one or two percent outside the whole that are wired in a different way sexually.

I don't even think it's comparable. There needs no explanation for why pedophilia is wrong. The fact that homosexuality is being compared to pedophilia makes me sick to my stomach. Sick.

I don't even think it's comparable. There needs no explanation for why pedophilia is wrong. The fact that homosexuality is being compared to pedophilia makes me sick to my stomach. Sick.

Mind you I am only comparing it because I am detaching our emotion revoltion of a person having sex with a child. Take that away and what do you have? Some one who is physically attracted to a certain set of characteristics that make them unable to breed. How is that honestly different than Homosexuality? Or Bestiality? Or anything else outside of Heterosexual sex?

To be fair, the same thing happened when Gays were delisted as a disorder, and I don't think we are back in the 50s atleast. However what backwards idiots do or do not do shouldn't keep it from being properly scientifically defined. Sadly though it seems like politics has and will always be part of the process.

Imagine all the rhetoric about the establishment going after the children. If I understand it properly, that kind of 'think of the children' refrain was prevalent when homosexuality was delisted because they considered homosexuality synonymous with pedophilia but with this situation, it's a little more direct because it is pedophila, so it gives people more fuel, and justified at that.

Also that event was organized by B4UAct in order to let pedophiles who are active in managing their own help 'have a voice' in the APA process. I can understand that logic and how it happened, and the justification for decriminalization, but still, even people at that conference weren't happy with all the sympathy for pedophiles without any for the children they might be affecting. It did not go well.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

Imagine all the rhetoric about the establishment going after the children. If I understand it properly, that kind of 'think of the children' refrain was prevalent when homosexuality was delisted because they considered homosexuality synonymous with pedophilia but with this situation, it's a little more direct because it is pedophila, so it gives people more fuel, and justified at that.

Also that event was organized by B4UAct in order to let pedophiles who are active in managing their own help 'have a voice' in the APA process. I can understand that logic and how it happened, and the justification for decriminalization, but still, even people at that conference weren't happy with all the sympathy for pedophiles without any for the children they might be affecting. It did not go well.

And I do understand the "Think of the Children" rhetoric, but wouldn't it be fair to separate the rapist from those that live normal lives? I mean would it be right if we grouped rapist in with any other sect? It would be like grouping those that like Furries into the same with those that actually have sex with zoo animals.

Mind you I am only comparing it because I am detaching our emotion revoltion of a person having sex with a child. Take that away and what do you have? Some one who is physically attracted to a certain set of characteristics that make them unable to breed. How is that honestly different than Homosexuality? Or Bestiality? Or anything else outside of Heterosexual sex?

Like I said, it's not comparable. You need a fresh set of morals. Now, explain to me why killing is bad. Oh, what's that? You have a very poor explanation? That's what I thought. Simply put, there are certain things called "morals."

Like I said, it's not comparable. You need a fresh set of morals. Now, explain to me why killing is bad. Oh, what's that? You have a very poor explanation? That's what I thought. Simply put, there are certain things called "morals."

But you are applying "morals" to strictly scientific thought. Again I ask, when you strip out our concern for children, and boil it down to the base foundation what is so different between Homosexuality and Pedophilia? I am waiting...

And I do understand the "Think of the Children" rhetoric, but wouldn't it be fair to separate the rapist from those that live normal lives? I mean would it be right if we grouped rapist in with any other sect? It would be like grouping those that like Furries into the same with those that actually have sex with zoo animals.

Well like I said, dormant pedophiles are fine, and so are furries in that vein. I'd group both of those in 'risk for perpetrating rape' toward each of their subjects technically, although psychologists ask for furries to seek help less often probably because they aren't as concerned about animals as they are about children - we can talk about the injustice of that or pointlessness or whatever of that another time. The reason they do that is to help pedophiles lead normal lives, not to stigmatize them further.

To be clear, I'm not saying 'think of the children' myself, that's just incredibly corny. I'm just envisioning two steps ahead where this response leads to that, and I'm afraid that if the gender/sexual field does have such a PR nightmare, it turns into a reverse social revolution that makes more people misinformed and prefering to avoid progressive gender/sexual ideas than not. I like the way it is now in the DSM. If a pedophile isn't a) upset over their preference, b) getting into legal trouble because of it, then why not just leave them be? Heck, reality is stranger than fiction when it comes to my inner circle. I honestly do not mind and I am honor bound not to discriminate. But that doesn't mean making false equities and removing needed precautions to do that.

Last edited by CSolarstorm; 12th August 2012 at 6:00 AM.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

Mind you I am only comparing it because I am detaching our emotion revoltion of a person having sex with a child. Take that away and what do you have? Some one who is physically attracted to a certain set of characteristics that make them unable to breed. How is that honestly different than Homosexuality? Or Bestiality? Or anything else outside of Heterosexual sex?

They are different, because eventually the child will be able to breed.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

Well like I said, dormant pedophiles are fine, and so are furries in that vein. I'd group both of those in 'risk for perpetrating rape' toward each of their subjects technically, although psychologists ask for furries to seek help less often probably because they aren't as concerned about animals as they are about children - we can talk about the injustice of that or pointlessness or whatever of that another time. The reason they do that is to help pedophiles lead normal lives, not to stigmatize them further.

But if we do accept that Pedophilia is nothing more than possibly a mutation of genes, or genes going in the wrong order like pretty much every other sexual attraction outside of heterosexuality ( Again assuming that the basic purpose of sexual attraction is finding a suitable mate to give birth ). Then giving them all the psychological help in the world won't really change them.

Originally Posted by SunnyC

To be clear, I'm not saying 'think of the children' myself, that's just incredibly corny. I'm just envisioning two steps ahead where this response leads to that, and I'm afraid that if the gender/sexual field does have such a PR nightmare, it turns into a reverse social revolution that makes more people misinformed and prefering to avoid progressive gender/sexual ideas than not. I like the way it is now in the DSM. If a pedophile isn't a) upset over their preference, b) getting into legal trouble because of it, then why not just leave them be?

Just a guess, but could it be that some Pedophiles believe they should be treated equally? That if they have something they cannot help and that is no different biologically than homosexuality, shouldn't it be given equal footing in scientific journals? I mean you are absolutely right that it is all about PR, and homosexuals will always trump Pedophiles and Furries and everyone else in PR sympathy. But I mean say for a second you are in their shoes, you have feelings you cannot control, you are stigmatized by society, and live in a world that basically would treat you like homosexuals were treated in the 50s if you "came out of the closet". Wouldn't even something as not being given equal footing in a scientific journal feel a bit unfair, to be called a disorder and homosexuals not?

I mean that is all I am looking at this position from, how would I feel if I had to watch one group be given priority over another based not on science but on PR. Wouldn't it feel like another slap to the face?

Originally Posted by marioguy

They are different, because eventually the child will be able to breed.

Except by then they are no longer attracted to the child because of the maturity of their body. Hell they would no longer even be called a pedophile scientifically if attracted to a child that is just starting puberty. They would be considered a Hebephile.

Except by then they are no longer attracted to the child because of the maturity of their body. Hell they would no longer even be called a pedophile scientifically if attracted to a child that is just starting puberty. They would be considered a Hebephile.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

If we are going by scientific terms, Pedophila is the sexual attraction to pre pubescent children. Hebephilia toward children beginning puberty, and ephebophilia toward children who are later in puberty. Now I am sure there are people who can be attracted to children and adults equally, just as gays can be attracted to both males an females.

That's a rather grim way to look at things. Imagine that there's a guy who has a crush on you, but you don't like him in return. According to your logic, the guy will eventually rape you and it's only a matter of time.

I see where you are coming from, but that's different. If a man was attracted to me, he would be attracted to women. Let's say I don't like him and turn him down. Eventually, he will have sex with a woman, not specifically me. And it may not be rape. Just as a serial killer might see you walking down a street one night (or even several occasions) and thinks about murdering you. Eventually he'll/she'll do it, but it may not be you.

Anyway, the over-arching point is that pedophiles (most) cannot hold their urges in forever. They will confront a child sexually.

Originally Posted by Celestial Moth

What if the kid yes lol?

It would be like a severely intoxicated person saying yes, worse actually. While both the child and semi-conscious person may say "OK", neither are fully aware of what they are getting into. Legally, drunk people cannot give consent anyway. On top of that, children don't really know what sex is.

I see where you are coming from, but that's different. If a man was attracted to me, he would be attracted to women. Let's say I don't like him and turn him down. Eventually, he will have sex with a woman, not specifically me. And it may not be rape. Just as a serial killer might see you walking down a street one night (or even several occasions) and thinks about murdering you. Eventually he'll/she'll do it, but it may not be you.

Anyway, the over-arching point is that pedophiles (most) cannot hold their urges in forever. They will confront a child sexually.

You're still sounding like men who don't have sex for a long enough period will eventually rape someone.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

But if we do accept that Pedophilia is nothing more than possibly a mutation of genes, or genes going in the wrong order like pretty much every other sexual attraction outside of heterosexuality ( Again assuming that the basic purpose of sexual attraction is finding a suitable mate to give birth ). Then giving them all the psychological help in the world won't really change them.

The idea is not to change them, though. It's to train them to prevent themselves from acting their desires out, in order to keep the differentiation of pedophile and child molester, like marioguy says. That's why psychologists urge them to get help, so they can get help managing being themselves and living within constraint of the law. They can tell everyone around them and have their own culture and everything. Those are ideal conditions (except for the illegalization of child porn) by LGBT standards.

Originally Posted by BigLutz

Just a guess, but could it be that some Pedophiles believe they should be treated equally? That if they have something they cannot help and that is no different biologically than homosexuality, shouldn't it be given equal footing in scientific journals? I mean you are absolutely right that it is all about PR, and homosexuals will always trump Pedophiles and Furries and everyone else in PR sympathy. But I mean say for a second you are in their shoes, you have feelings you cannot control, you are stigmatized by society, and live in a world that basically would treat you like homosexuals were treated in the 50s if you "came out of the closet". Wouldn't even something as not being given equal footing in a scientific journal feel a bit unfair, to be called a disorder and homosexuals not?

I mean that is all I am looking at this position from, how would I feel if I had to watch one group be given priority over another based not on science but on PR. Wouldn't it feel like another slap to the face?

If I was saying all this just because of PR, then yes, it would be terrible. And I know I got a little too passionate in acting afraid of that. Bad PR is just part of it though. I honestly believe pedophilia needs to be part of the DSM, because what good would the destigmatization be if more pedophiles sought psychological assistance just to be told there's nothing to help and they're fine the way they are? There is something solid psychologist need to do for pedophilic patients, and for them to do that, there needs to be a diagnosis. As a medical patient this is just how I think.

The tragedy of this is that I think that B4UAct did a very commendable thing by fostering a democratic system where pedophiles can be part of their own diagnosis. Like many amazing commendable things, it just happened to lead to something amazing in a bad way, in that the conversation cared more about about comforting its representatives then helping them deal with the truth.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.